I thought it might be useful to share some information on scam sites. If you know of any - why not make them public information.

This site: www.rosenstockcapital.com is a financial investment scam from a company calling itself Rosenstock Capital that claims to use Ellis Alden www.ellis-alden.com as its 'official clearing bank' and is registered through through: www.fesc.us 'purporting to be 'The Futures Exchange Securities Council'. This is an ellaborate scam. These are all financial scam websites. Some of the names of people claiming to be from Rosenstock are: Jack Dawson, Helen Scott, Jonathon Fleming, Oliver Dempsey, James Pope, James Peterson.

What was that saying about ... "A fool and his money ..."?

Only fools with money to burn would even look at [censored] like that, surely?

I doubt that I'm the only potential mug who receives emails almost daily with "proposals" that I "can't refuse". Needless to say I bin them without even a glance (indeed, some of them look so long and involved that I can't imagine how anyone would even have the time to wade through them)!

Being poor is one thing. Being daft is quite another!

Do you mean I'm not going to receive my $1.3 million off that guy from Nigeria then Geoff

Umm ... I guess not.

What's that other old saying? "If something looks too good to be true, it probably is".

BTW, Burkina Faso seems to be another favourite these days (or perhaps I'm just "lucky").

Hi John,

What evidence has come to light that these are scams?

I may have some info.

Regards

Darren

Darren, check the spelling and grammar, also you may notice that they mainly use a hotmail account as a means of reply and this does not ring bells with you. The main area of concern is "did you buy a ticket"

Hi Neil,

Yes i did, the did check the company through ellis-alden and the fesc, and the mechanics of the commodities were correct.

I was befriended by a Johnathon Fleming.

Where is the best place to report this.

Regards

Darren

try ceop at the met

Not here.

Not really the best place if you're looking for sympathy either, I'm afraid (although I hope you haven't lost anything).

You could also say you have a lot more to invest but would like to meet and set up a sting or have I just been watching to many cop shows.

Yes Billy. You've been watching too many cop shows.

What d'you want to do ... end up in the Atlantic Ocean (or wherever)?

(somehow I can't imagine any of those Dudes wanting to travel to a pub in Carlisle)

I've had 2 e-mails in the past week from Santander Bank. They had links to certain sites on the e-mails. The first one told me that someone had tried several times to access my account with the wrong password. 'For my security' they had temporarily suspended my account. I was to fill in a form with all my account details urgently for them to fix the problem. I will let you guess what I didn't do.

Yesterday I had another e-mail saying that a 'third party' had accessed my account and that I needed to respond with all my personal details immediately to resolve the problem.

This has happened in the past as well. I did send all the details to Santander (the genuine one) then to tell them what was happening. I shall not bother this time. Funny thing is, I don't even have an account with them.

By all accounts this is quite a common scam that has been going on for some time.

-ditto- Lloyds-TSB, Barclays (and First Bank of Nigeria) ... and all the other accounts that I don't have.

Not to mention Skype, PayPal, Western Union ... and a whole bunch of others.

When I go on line each day, the first thing I do is delete 90% (sometimes 100%) of the [censored] in my mail-box.

Surely I'm not the only one who has to do this? No. Everyone must.

Anyone who falls for stuff like this ... well, fill in the blanks for yourself!

I have had a couple of these and replied using my false name "Scrottie McBoogerballs" and the account number as "5318008" use a calculator and turn upside down!

I must say the are pesistant and try again every couple of months and i have the same problem as Mike Burns i don't have an account with them! LOL

Darth Welder - Living on the Darkside

Yeah ... but they'll (we'll) be on to you now!

Phishing emails are very commonplace. I get several per week as I'm sure many of you do.

Usually a website is hacked and fake files are placed in some random directory that take advantage of the compromised sites interactive abilities.

I have twice been called on to repair websites that have been so compromised.

The fault on both occasions was down to inadequate security precautions taken by the site owners (and the fact that so many sites are hosted on shared hosting platforms).

The files then generate emails to 'millions' of users which are ostensibly from a genuine bank. The emails and the fake website can be very realistic.

On both occasions the log files indicated the breach to have originated from Eastern Europe.

If the hosting company were worth their salt, it (the attack) would have been stopped in its tracks.

Another example of 'you get what you pay for'.

Hi,

I have reported the Fraud to ACTION FRAUD.

Spread the word!!!!!!!!

Regards

Darren

Has anybody else been affected!!!

By the ROSENSTOCK CAPITAL SCAM.

It's part of the price we all pay for being part of our Wonderful Joined-up World!

@Huw: unfortunately, that's not all that has "originated from Eastern Europe".

PS: just got one from the Halifax Bank (whatever that is).

Looks like the rosenstock and fesc sites are finally down.

i wonder how ELLIS ALDEN fit into it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah, so that's how they do it.

I had a hilarious one a couple of days ago, from someone claiming that I'd been cheated out of millions of pounds on some lottery, 'by scammers' mind you! - and they were going to reclaim it for me...

I doubt it's worth trying to report them. I'm sure they set up new schemes every day. But I've heard of people like 'Scrottie McBoogerballs' having a bit of fun at their expense by stringing them along for a while using their own tactics. For example, inventing a long, involved tale of woe, and asking *them* for money!

Moira

Yes, it's OK saying 'delete all your unwanted e-mails', and 'you get what you pay for'. My question is - what is the point of trying to eradicate this problem by telling the authorities/companies about these scams when they don't take any action?

Surely the ISP's can stop this happening. Why aren't the genuine companies going after the bad guys after being told what is going on? Perhaps they are, but they don't seem to be doing a very good job.

The cr*p on the internet is getting worse. I object to receiving mail via the post from companies I have not contacted, receiving these e-mails is the same thing. I can look after myself thanks, but there are lots of unfortunate souls out there who have been conned. They have 'fallen for stuff like this' and certainly have my sympathy. We are not all Internet savvy unfortunately.

What do you suggest then, Mike?

What should "they" do? Close down the 'net just to "protect" a few daft* folk?

* Innocent, naïve, vulnerable ... whatever.

Come on now Geoff, let's be realistic. Closing down the 'net is just not an option.

There just has to be better policing by the ISP's. I just cannot believe that in this day and age they can't come up with filtering software to stop phishers/criminals/conmen from attempting to rob us via the 'net.

It is no good them telling us that there are legal reasons why they can't block access to individuals/scammers/criminals. Can you imagine the outcry if organisations allowed their premises to advertise notices by criminals. There would be an outcry. That is what happens with some ISP's.

I think that market forces will prevail in the end. People in the future will just not use certain ISP's if they don't take a more responsible attitude to the messages they convey.

I must point out that I am specifically talking about e-mails and their links to scam/scum sites. I can choose to go on a particular website, I don't have as much choice when looking at my e-mails.

Glad you gave an alternate definition of 'daft' in your post. The innocents, (naive maybe) were the people I was talking about.

I take an entirely opposite view (well, I would, wouldn't I?).

I am against filtering, or "control" of the internet, of any kind. Obviously "governments" would love to control it (they would call it regulation of course), just as they make great efforts to control just about every other aspect of our lives. The internet is about Freedom ... and that's what many of us like, want and need!

Innocent or just plain dumb, people just have to learn about the Real World. Unfortunately, in places like the UK, where Nanny Knows Best and all that [censored], folk have been indoctrinated that everything is "safe", we are all being "protected", and hopefully wrapped in cotton wool from the cradle to the grave. And yes, it's always someone else's fault when stuff goes wrong!

Yes:- naïve.

"Rich Westerners" are seen as "soft-touch" targets by many others out there in the world. Somehow I doubt that there are many internet scams heading out in the other direction.

Sooner or later (and things usually turn out better when it's sooner), everyone has to wise up to the realities of life. We are all under various threats, all of the time. Be it from viruses (real viruses, I mean), street crime, cyber-attacks, dodgy devices hanging off ATM's, idiots on the roads and nutters on the steets ... or whatever. You just need to be aware, be responsible, and take sensible precautions. That is, don't "leave it for someone else" to take care of things (in reality, there is nobody else).

What's that saying:- "If you can't run with the big dogs, you'd better stay on the porch"?

If Little Old Grannies are daft (yes, daft) enough to part with their Life's Savings over some preposterous proposal ... then more fool them. Perhaps they should just stick to the Lottery, like every other sensible person. As far as I am aware, scammers can't take anything ... you have to give it to them (after falling for their BS, of course).

And ... if parents can't be bothered to check up on what their kids are up to from time to time, then they shouldn't be too surprised when the Poor Little Darlings are ogling porn!

I like the thought of playing the scammers at their own game. Such people exist and call themselves "Scambaiters".

One of my favourite ones that I read about in the news some time ago was Holy Church of the Order of the Red Breast

The above link contains the full email history from when the 'victim' was contacted until contact stopped. It spanned 5 months from start to finish.

Yes, but ... quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Actually, it's something that interests me. If I won the Lottery and had the time, it's the sort of thing that I might like to participate in myself.

Also ... what really goes on behind the scenes at McAfee, Symantec, and SpyBot et al?

Poacher turned Gamekeeper springs to mind.

See also... http://www.419baiter.com/

... I was also going to add (before I went off to put on the kettle):- who pays the piper?

Yeah ... 419-scams. And why *Nigeria? Poverty plus ingenuity? Access to the 'net? Who knows? Perhaps there's a nice subject for a research project, right there.

* Not the only one, of course. But the one that everyone (or so we thought until today) knows about.

Well, well, fancy you not caring about the 'Little Old Grannies' of this world. This, after all the statements you have given us in the past about lack of caring etc, etc in the modern (UK I suppose) world. Tut tut. As you may suspect, I take the opposite view thank goodness. Perhaps these 'Little Old Grannies' who have probably never harmed anyone, paid all their taxes, live on meagre pensions are part of the 'Rich Westerners' culture that need to be fleeced by the low life.

With the freedom that you mention comes responsibility. Yes, and funnily enough I believe that this responsibility should even apply to the low life of this world.

Perhaps we should get rid of the 'Nanny State' altogether - methinks this is the route to Anarchy though. Don't think that this means that I agree with all the nonsense legislation that we see today, just that most of it is needed unfortunately. That's because we have low life living amongst us.

Don't think I will take up your suggestion of doing the lottery. If you expect to win that at odds of over 14 million to one, that's not sensible, that's dumb. Dumb or incredibly lucky, and I am neither.

A classic case of "chicken and egg", surely:- Nanny State -> Dependency -> Low-Lifes (who then "need" the Nanny State to depend upon) ... and so it goes on.

But seeing that you mention it Mike, I actually care a great deal about the Little Old Grannies. Not so much "of the world" though, but more especially those English Old Grannies (but I thought we were talking about idiots being taken in by internet scams).

I happen to believe, for instance, that they often get a crap deal out of not only the National Health Service, but all the other so-called "services" in this country as well. If I fight for anyone, it's the Common Folk of England. And if I ever do work in hospitals again, it's those kind of people that I like to think I'm working for.

Sod the Nanny State. Let the Low-Lifes, addicts, chavs, benefit scroungers, thieves (same thing) and all the rest of the dross go hang (literally, if I had my way). Sometimes you just have to be cruel to be kind, consider the Greater Good, whatever. Frankly, we need a cull.

'Sometimes you just have to be cruel to be kind, consider the Greater Good, whatever. Frankly we need a cull'.

Well I never was a supporter of Jeremy Bentham and his theory of Utilitarianism - The Greater Good etc. Is it right to have an action, 'a cull' that would somehow make the overall situation better i.e. for the Greater Good. If the action was done in the name of the Law (whatever that means) then it may be justified I suppose. But if it is done on an individual basis i.e. I think we need a cull, let's kill a few people off, that cannot be right. If you are going to be serious Geoff, you must do better.

Saying that you fight for the Common Folk of England makes you sound like a little Englander. I don't mean that in a nasty sense, it is just how it comes across to me as an average Welshman.

Just as we are all "required" to respect the "rights" of just about everyone else these days, it seems ... then I assert my own Ancient Right (paid for in blood, the true and lasting currency of life) to defend my own people. In my case, I am not ashamed to say that they are not only the Common Folk of England, but the Common Rural Folk.

Invaders may come and go (traditionally, we used to repel them, you know) but the Yeomen of England shall remain (if only because we've nowhere else to go).

I don't really want to become drawn into debates about categorising people ... but suffice to say that if you investigate the term "Little Englander", you will find that it was originally intended to mean something other than what it has become commonly used (misused) for today.

It would be a bit difficult to be (or even have been) a supporter of Jeremy Bentham, I would have thought (seeing that he was around in the 19th. century); but most of his stuff was spot-on from the little I know of it. A man ahead of his time, it would seem.

The Cull? Yes, (good) farmers (and park rangers, and the like) do it. It improves the quality of the herd, you know. Meanwhile, our own gene pool descends more and more into the realms of pond life, as chav begats chav ... etc. (also known, quite appropriately, as "breeding for benefits")!

Meanwhile ... back to scammers!

But only "average", Mike? Sorry Mate, but I'm not impressed.

Interestingly, I was listening to the news earlier, and there was an american policeman on who had been under cover with the Mafia for 6 years saying cyber crime is becoming much more popular with criminals than 'strong arm' crime because it is much easier to avoid prosecution and even when prosecuted, much shorter sentences.

There's hope for me yet, then.